MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405537375 · doi:10.3310/hsdr04160

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

2016· article· en· W2405537375 on OpenAlexaff
Rosalind Raine, Ray Fitzpatrick, Helen Barratt, Gywn Bevan, Nick Black, Ruth Boaden, Peter Bower, Marion Campbell, Jean‐Louis Denis, Kelly J. Devers, Mary Dixon‐Woods, Lesley Fallowfield, Julien Forder, Robbie Foy, Nick Freemantle, Naomi Fulop, Elizabeth Gibbons, Clare Gillies, Lucy Goulding, Richard Grieve, Jeremy Grimshaw, Emma Howarth, Richard Lilford, Ruth McDonald, Graham Moore, Laurence Moore, Robin Newhouse, Alicia O’Cathain, Zeynep Or, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Stephanie L. Prady, Jo Rycroft‐Malone, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Simon Turner, Sam Watson, Merrick Zwarenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services and Delivery Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family MedicineWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
FundersUniversity of SouthamptonNational Institutes of HealthHealth FoundationMedical Research CouncilHealth Services and Delivery Research ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsHeadlineHealth carePublic healthPublic relationsFlexibility (engineering)PragmatismKnowledge managementBusinessManagement scienceMedicineComputer scienceNursingPolitical scienceEngineeringManagementEconomicsAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Headline Evaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed methods to inform such evaluations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.737
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.638
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7370.638
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0100.043
Scholarly communication0.0430.067
Open science0.0150.026
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.803
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.128 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations194
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services and Delivery ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207